Page 58 of 68 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 ... LastLast
Results 1,711 to 1,740 of 2026

Thread: What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

  1. #1711
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    STOP LYING.
    In your view, why is lying wrong?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #1712
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    See, rockerrockstar? Roy is a cold-blooded, sociopathic, would-be murderous enslaver
    <yawn> History is unanimous on this point: it is LANDOWNERS who are the cold-blooded, sociopathic, murderous enslavers. And those who rationalize and justify their depredations -- the enablers -- are of course far worse.
    - someone who calls good evil, and evil good, and means it with every fiber of his corrupt being.
    Stuvid is lying again. Greed -- unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money" -- is the root of all manner of evil. Greed is defined as excessive desire for more than one needs or deserves. As landowners neither need nor deserve to pocket land rent, their desire to pocket it is by definition greedy, and therefore is a root of evil.

    LVT advocates are therefore champions of liberty, justice and good; the apologists for landowner privilege, by contrast, are servants of enslavement, injustice and evil. They are the lowest, most despicable subhuman filth that has ever existed.
    He would force everyone into permanent perpetual bondage
    Filth. Evil, despicable, lying filth. Everyone would in fact have free, secure tenure on enough land to live on, and only those who wanted to exclude others from more than their own fair share of the land would pay anything at all.
    through a fictitious perpetual land value debt that everyone owes to everyone else for that "permanent flow of advantages" (of rock, sand and dirt),
    Stop lying, Stupen. You make me sick with your constant, vicious, despicable, evil lying. You know I have stated many times that the advantages arise not only from the physical qualities nature provides -- which also include climate, proximity to water supplies, views, slope, exposure, etc. -- but the services and infrastructure government provides, and the opportunities and amenities the community provides. You just insist that landowners should continue to be privileged to pocket the value of those advantages -- including the ones other people's taxes pay for -- in return for contributing exactly nothing. You are an apologist for the filthiest, most despicable, evil parasites on earth.
    based on fictitious deprivations,
    You are a lying sack of $#!+, Stupin. The deprivations the landless suffer kill millions of them every year. You know this. Of course you do. You just believe it is rightful to lay millions of human sacrifices per year on the altar of your Great God Property. You are completely in favor of murdering millions of innocent people per year, as long as private landowners profit from the slaughter.
    forever demanding a price for whatever we provided for each other, regardless if the costs have already been paid.
    Why always lie, Stuvid? The costs of providing government services and infrastructure cannot already have been paid, and the cost of providing land cannot be other than zero, as it was already there, ready to use, with no help from any landowner or anyone else.
    But, like Fed debt-money, the debt always looms over your head, and can never be paid in full.
    No, you just always have to tell stupid lies. Unlike interest on debt money, land rent is paid for an ongoing flow of benefits provided by government and the community. You have to keep paying for it for the exact same reason you have to keep paying for the groceries you eat: you keep paying more because you KEEP TAKING MORE.
    That's Roy's LVT macabre slavery treadmill - the artificial hamster wheel of death that he wants everyone on.

    Beyond nasty, isn't it?
    Your claims are beyond absurd, dishonest and idiotic.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #1713
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    In your view, why is lying wrong?
    In this case, it's wrong because it is rationalizing, justifying and enabling the greatest evil that has ever existed. More generally, it's wrong because it undercuts social trust and people's ability to think and behave rationally.

  6. #1714
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    More generally, it's wrong because it undercuts social trust and people's ability to think and behave rationally.
    Why is undercutting trust wrong?

  7. #1715
    No answer Roy?

    I'm trying to get down to the fundamentals of your worldview. You keep saying things are "wrong" and "evil", but I bet I can show that you can't say anything is wrong or evil.

  8. #1716
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    No answer Roy?
    Unlike evil, I have to sleep sometime.
    I'm trying to get down to the fundamentals of your worldview.
    They're beyond the scope of this thread.
    You keep saying things are "wrong" and "evil", but I bet I can show that you can't say anything is wrong or evil.
    Bet you can't. I hold a degree in philosophy, with honors, from an internationally respected university. You, by contrast, have probably never had a course in logic. The notion that you are going to school me in moral reasoning is laughable.

  9. #1717
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    Why is undercutting trust wrong?
    It weakens society by reducing cooperation and promoting internal conflict. The effect of individual behavior on reproductive success through its influence on societal fitness is the evolutionary source of the human capacity for moral reasoning, and defines right and wrong.

  10. #1718
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    That's a flat-out fabrication. I have identified the non-consensual transfers. You just refuse to know the facts, as usual.
    You identified no such transfers. There are no such transfers.

    I feel pedantic and time-wasting even having to write the above, it was so obvious from the exchange.



    So many endless hours could be wasted playing with this Turing monster. Better to talk with Siri.

    Thanks to the high traffic and tolerance found on RPF, the program has gone on for far longer than ever planned for. The programmer made no provision for a thread so long. Which is why the program seems like it's not even trying any more (fallacious anthropomorphizing, I know).
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 01-31-2012 at 05:09 PM.

  11. #1719
    Sorry, but all this anti-landowner stuff sounds like this to me:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ0up_MjsLk

    Kill my landlord, kill my landlord.

    Ownership makes people happy. That's why I whole heartily advocate it. Paying rent makes people bitter. Maybe if we had more rent subsidies like in Europe it wouldn't. Gotta have big taxes for welfare states like that, though.

    Get on Section 8 and get over it, Roy.
    Last edited by furface; 01-31-2012 at 04:55 PM.

  12. #1720
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    It weakens society by reducing cooperation and promoting internal conflict.
    Why is promoting internal conflict wrong?



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #1721
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    It weakens society by reducing cooperation and promoting internal conflict.
    Lack of land ownership weakens society and promotes conflict. This is why colonial Americans HAD to adopt private property. Otherwise they would have starved to death. Learn about William Bradford and the failed experiment in landowner-less society here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  15. #1722
    This thread is about half way there to being the longest thread on RPF. Good job Roy!

  16. #1723
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    This thread is about half way there to being the longest troll thread on RPF. Good job Roy!
    I also congratulate Roy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  17. #1724
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I also congratulate Roy.
    Roy:


  18. #1725
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I also congratulate Roy.
    Me too! For things he would not want congratulations for, but I would congratulate him nonetheless. I even want to give him a medal of freedom or something, for all his unwitting, unintended hard work on my behalf. Let me explain:

    I was shocked during a fifth grade spelling contest that I got to choose my own opponent. I was no doubt the best speller in the class - I knew that. But naturally, I picked the dumbest guy in the class anyway, and WHOOPED him soundly. Hollow victory? Yeah. Of course. But it was fun, and I won.

    I can think of no better way of defeating an obnoxious proposal than to be able to hand pick its most obnoxious, vocal and people-repulsive champions by hand. You might as well embrace them as allies! In that regard, Roy is the gift that just keeps on giving, and for that, I congratulate him. There's no chance that Roy can be accused of being a puppet straw man, working as a counter-agent against the LVT cause. He's just too damned dedicated!

    In that respect Roy would be my first round draft pick every time, because every time he types something about LVT, nothing but bugs, worms and hissing snakes come crawling out of his keyboard! He spares absolutely nobody from his venom and vitriol, including many who might otherwise agree with him in principle! He's a one-man wrecking crew, an unintended consequence monster of his own making, for his own cause.

  19. #1726
    Well, without the State (and their enforcement powers), it seems true that "land property ownership" in the traditional sense doesn't really exist. So therefore, it makes sense to have some sort of tax imposed on deeded land, in repayment for the ability to legally "own" it, and to use the State to enforce that right. That's the gist of Georgism, anyway, and in large part I agree with that perspective. To be honest, it might be the fairest way to fund government. Since "labor", "sales", etc. could obviously exist without the State, the State has no right to tax them IMHO. Land ownership is different; the state declares a portion of what was once common land, as exclusively "yours", and therefore, the state has some claim to your ability to "own" it. The strong caveat I have is that I do not believe that the State should be able to seize your primary residence in the case that you fail to make payment. In the case of non-payment (and with the lack of State land-seizure rights), then I could entertain the State pursuing alternative means of securing payment from a land owner. Perhaps then, compensatory and punitive taxes on income would be a reasonable way to pay back taxes on land. Secondary plots, would be fair game for seizure if the owner fails to pay. I think that would be a pretty fair system.

    The same goes for Corporations (if they are to exist). Sole proprietorships should not be subject to taxation on profits. Corporations in all their various forms, however, are merely legal fictions created by the State. No State, no corporations. Therefore, the State has the right to impose excise on profits for those who choose to use that privilege.

    The only question is how much the state is fairly entitled to, and that's a question that really has no perfect answer.

    I'm not really well versed on tariffs, but I know that many libertarians and the like seem to favor them over other forms of taxation. Anyone care to school me?
    Last edited by gb13; 01-31-2012 at 06:09 PM.

  20. #1727
    Quote Originally Posted by gb13 View Post
    The only question is how much the state is fairly entitled to, and that's a question that really has no perfect answer.
    I do-none. To claim otherwise presupposes that man does not own himself. This is why as the Regime claims more and more of individual's wealth and property as its own, society breaks down. IOW, when the State grows, it does so at the expense of everyone else-like a cancer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  21. #1728
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    No, you idiot.
    Yes, you economic ignoramus:

    "The rent of land, considered as the price paid for the use of Lands, is naturally a monopoly price,"
    -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
    Singular control over a single thing is an example of a monopoly.
    And so is singular control over a unique factor in fixed supply.
    Individual and separate control over separate parcels of a thing, including land, is not a monopoly.
    Wrong. It is well known that conceptual aggregation of unique goods in fixed supply under some broader term -- like calling all the unique original artworks "art," or all the unique land parcels "land" -- does not alter the monopoly character of the market for each one. IOW, even if one person owned them all, they could not get a higher total price than the combined prices obtained by the various owners of each one.
    You need an enema to clean out that brain of yours.
    I am objectively correct. You are an economic ignoramus. Simple.
    Yes, and you were just as wrong, each and every time.
    No, I was correct as a matter of objective fact each time.
    "Trust for all" is a way of saying "ownership for all" (under one collectivized "all" umbrella).
    Already refuted. Government administers use of the atmosphere and oceans in trust for all, but does not own them. How many more times, and in how many more different ways, would I have to prove you wrong before you would become willing to consider the possibility that you actually ARE wrong?
    At least most of the other LVT'ers are honest enough to admit that it's collective ownership up front.
    It is only ownership as a matter of legal form because there is no legal trust in place to exercise authority over it.
    Well, that's one way to say it. Another way would be that the current system violates people's rights to landownership
    No, such a right cannot exist in the first place, as it inherently violates the right to liberty.
    to the extent the land value is appraised and taxed, which of course is a form of outright theft,
    No, that's just another stupid lie from you. It is the landowner who is guilty of outright theft, as land value measures what he takes from society but does not repay.
    while LVT promises to steal all land,
    To redress a prior theft is not stealing, so stop lying.
    and place all title to land under one collectivized umbrella, so that the state can collect unearned profits
    No, you are just lying again. The state earns land rent by providing the services and infrastructure that make land valuable, and sustaining the community that provides the opportunities and amenities that make it even more valuable. It is the private landowner, by contrast, who exacts the unearned profits, as he does not provide or contribute anything whatever.
    which can be redistributed under the guise of equal rights of life and liberty for all.
    You either believe in the equal human rights to life and liberty or you don't. You don't. Simple.
    Roy, under an LVT, both the trustees and the tyrannous majority
    ROTFL!!! So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," a majority acting to secure and reconcile their equal rights to life and liberty, and establish a just framework for land allocation in their society, is "tyrannous," but one bloated feudal landowner robbing and oppressing millions of people into permanent, inescapable, grinding poverty by exercising his legal property "rights" over millions of acres of the land nature provided for free is somehow just another peaceable participant in the voluntary free market?

    Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...
    that hired such thugs to collect unearned profits
    It is government and the community that earn land rent by creating it, and the landowner whose profits are unearned because he contributes nothing, as I already proved to you.
    on their behalf are thieves. That's all. Cowards, parasites and rent-seeking thieves.
    No, Steven, you have already proved that it is the private landowner who is the parasite, coward, and rent-seeking thief, by your inability to answer The Question:

    "How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"
    Yeah? Why is harvesting rainwater from your own roof illegal in some states, Roy?
    Because legislators wanted to stop large-scale diversions of public water resources by private interests, and didn't realize that small-scale collection for domestic use actually reduces demand on public water systems.
    It's because the state has claimed title to the $#@!ing rain itself, that's why.
    No, you are just $#@!ing lying again. Aquifers, open water bodies, watercourses, etc. are rightly recognized to be public resources, not private property, and diversion of rainfall from those resources is stealing from the public.
    Ownership -- of what is in the atmosphere. Claimed by the state. You know this. Of course you do. You just always have to deliberately lie about it.
    Either provide a direct quote from a duly enacted law claiming state ownership of the atmosphere, or admit that you are evil, despicable, lying filth.
    Now go puke your guts out, as you are getting sick for a very good reason, Roy.
    True. The monstrous evil of apologists for landowner privilege is grotesquely sickening.
    Cognitive dissonance like yours can make one very ill.
    No cognitive dissonance here. Everything makes sense to me, because I am willing to know facts -- everything, that is, except the monstrous, horrifying, satanic dishonesty and evil practiced by apologists for landowner privilege who rationalize and justify the greatest evil in the history of the world. They serve an evil that not only almost always harms them personally, but will almost certainly rob and enslave their own children, whose liberty and lives the servants of greed, privilege and evil eagerly offer up as human sacrifices on the altar of their Great God Property.

    That cannot be made to make sense.
    Last edited by Roy L; 01-31-2012 at 05:57 PM.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #1729
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I do-none.
    Ok, fine. Then no one owns land in the colloquial sense, because the state doesn't have any reason to enforce ownership rights. You can sit on your land with a gun at all times to fend off individuals who arguably have just as much of a claim over it as you do. Or maybe hire someone else to do it for you....just hope that the looters don't offer them more to turn a blind eye. Look, I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a State, I'm just simply stating that without the State, land property ownership in the traditional sense doesn't really exist. Which is entirely true.

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    To claim otherwise presupposes that man does not own himself. This is why as the Regime claims more and more of individual's wealth and property as its own, society breaks down. IOW, when the State grows, it does so at the expense of everyone else-like a cancer.
    I should have clarified, but I meant to imply that the State could seize private land only for the purposes of auctioning it off to another private individual, in order to recoup the taxes owed. Never to keep it or claim it as their own. Any profits obtained beyond compensation for back-taxes and perhaps reasonable punitive fees (what's reasonable?) would have to be returned to the original owner.

  24. #1730
    Quote Originally Posted by gb13 View Post
    The same goes for Corporations (if they are to exist). Sole proprietorships should not be subject to taxation on profits. Corporations in all their various forms, however, are merely legal fictions created by the State. No State, no corporations. Therefore, the State has the right to impose excise on profits for those who choose to use that privilege.
    I would not say that "the same goes for corporations" - I would say that it ONLY goes for corporations, foreign entities, or any other entity that operates as a matter of privilege, and not right. If you completely separated sovereign individuals from all of this nonsense, for which it should not apply, I would actually have no problem with LVT, at least in principle, or what the state did with regard to such entities - so long as no rights of individuals were interfered with (and by that, I don't mean fictitious "otherwise would be at liberty rights"). Not "an exemption" for individuals, for which such laws should not apply in the first place.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 01-31-2012 at 06:10 PM.

  25. #1731
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Lack of land ownership weakens society and promotes conflict.
    Nope. There is no evidence for such a claim, and ample evidence against it. Private landowner parasitism has been the most common cause of revolution and societal collapse throughout history.
    This is why colonial Americans HAD to adopt private property.
    In products of labor. But even their aboriginal neighbors had that, which allowed them to survive comfortably in the very same location, landowner-less, even with only Stone Age technology. Why can't you ever remember that, hmmmm?
    Otherwise they would have starved to death. Learn about William Bradford and the failed experiment in landowner-less society here.
    No, I already refuted your stupid garbage, remember? The failed experiment that Bradford recorded, which has also failed numerous other times, was a PRODUCT-ownerless society. From YOUR OWN SOURCE:

    "Knowing that the fruits of his labor would benefit his own family and dependents, the head of each household was given an incentive to work harder."

    Many societies have had no private landowners whatever and have thrived, Hong Kong being just the most glaring example. The Plymouth colony's aboriginal neighbors survived comfortably without any landowners even though they enjoyed a far lower level of technology than the pilgrims, because they had private property in products of labor. Therefore, that was the key factor the Plymouth experiment had got wrong, not landowning. It was effectively a controlled experiment in political economy, and the results were unambiguous:

    High technology without property in land or products of labor --> failure
    Low technology without property in land but WITH property in products of labor --> success
    High technology with property in land and products of labor --> success

    The results of the experiment demonstrate that neither technology nor property in land were relevant to societal success. The ONLY relevant factor was property in products of labor.

    You will now refuse to know the facts clearly demonstrated by this experiment.

  26. #1732
    Quote Originally Posted by gb13 View Post
    Well, without the State (and their enforcement powers), it seems true that "land property ownership" in the traditional sense doesn't really exist. ... Land ownership is different; the state declares a portion of what was once common land, as exclusively "yours", and therefore, the state has some claim to your ability to "own" it.
    That's the myth, but in actuality, humans spontaneously form property-rights orders when "left to themselves" in the absence of a state. This has happened repeatedly throughout history. People respect each other's property rights in land repeatedly throughout history, without any state involved or even anywhere in sight. Think of the American Old West, for instance. The land was not all once this mythical "common land" with things only being divvied up once the wise and all-knowing state came on the scene and started divvying and doling. That's just not reality; that's not how it happened, happens, or would happen in the future under any likely scenario.

    Everyone knows about "chaos theory", right? Order spontaneously arises out of chaos. You don't have to have things being planned and directed from the top down. The alternative to a top-down approach, and superior in many ways, is the bottom-up collaboration of freedom. It's superior in flexibility, resilience, and efficiency. It is more humane, respectful of individuality, and compatible with human dignity and liberty.

    Most good laws and good aspects of our legal system were originally created by non-state, market-driven, free and collaborative processes. Not by the state -- the state just co-opts the good ideas. Property law can be taken care of on the free market. It is not dependent on the state. Defensive and security measures can be provided on the market as well -- security guards, surveillance, physical barriers, detective work, retaliation against aggressors, etc. All these things can be done so much better by free and competitive firms than they can be by slow, stupid, and monopolistic state police agencies, courts, and prisons.

  27. #1733
    Quote Originally Posted by gb13 View Post
    Ok, fine. Then no one owns land in the colloquial sense, because the state doesn't have any reason to enforce ownership rights. You can sit on your land with a gun at all times to fend off individuals who arguably have just as much of a claim over it as you do. Or maybe hire someone else to do it for you....just hope that the looters don't offer them more to turn a blind eye. Look, I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a State, I'm just simply stating that without the State, land property ownership in the traditional sense doesn't really exist. Which is entirely true.
    No, this is entirely false. Land ownership in the Western territories existed long before official entry into the union. History doesn't bear out what you're saying. btw, just because looters use force to take my land doesn't make it legitimately theirs-same as any other sort of theft.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  28. #1734
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    That's the myth, but in actuality, humans spontaneously form property-rights orders when "left to themselves" in the absence of a state. This has happened repeatedly throughout history. People respect each other's property rights in land repeatedly throughout history, without any state involved or even anywhere in sight. Think of the American Old West, for instance. The land was not all once this mythical "common land" with things only being divvied up once the wise and all-knowing state came on the scene and started divvying and doling. That's just not reality; that's not how it happened, happens, or would happen in the future under any likely scenario.

    Everyone knows about "chaos theory", right? Order spontaneously arises out of chaos. You don't have to have things being planned and directed from the top down. The alternative to a top-down approach, and superior in many ways, is the bottom-up collaboration of freedom. It's superior in flexibility, resilience, and efficiency. It is more humane, respectful of individuality, and compatible with human dignity and liberty.

    Most good laws and good aspects of our legal system were originally created by non-state, market-driven, free and collaborative processes. Not by the state -- the state just co-opts the good ideas. Property law can be taken care of on the free market. It is not dependent on the state. Defensive and security measures can be provided on the market as well -- security guards, surveillance, physical barriers, detective work, retaliation against aggressors, etc. All these things can be done so much better by free and competitive firms than they can be by slow, stupid, and monopolistic state police agencies, courts, and prisons.
    qft!
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  29. #1735
    If you do not repeal the 16th amendment its only a matter of whether your facing forward or back before going over the falls. Starve the beast, cut its means to metastasize.

  30. #1736
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Lack of land ownership weakens society and promotes conflict. This is why colonial Americans HAD to adopt private property. Otherwise they would have starved to death. Learn about William Bradford and the failed experiment in landowner-less society here.
    Its so funny you point out that story because it proves that a geoist society WORKS!

    As Governor Bradford describes it, "At last after much debate of things, the governor gave way that they should set corn everyman for his own particular... That had very good success for it made all hands very industrious, so much [more] corn was planted than otherwise would have been". The Pilgrims changed their economic system from communism to geoism; the land was still owned in common and could not be sold or inherited, but each family was allotted a portion, and they could keep whatever they grew. The governor "assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end."


    http://www.progress.org/fold65.htm
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #1737
    An entertaining and informative short video that summarizes why poverty continues despite our 'progress'.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itO7OoKtNUc
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  33. #1738
    Quote Originally Posted by awake View Post
    If you do not repeal the 16th amendment its only a matter of whether your facing forward or back before going over the falls. Starve the beast, cut its means to metastasize.
    Agreed. The 16th amendment is a moral abomination.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  34. #1739
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    An entertaining and informative short video that summarizes why poverty continues despite our 'progress'.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itO7OoKtNUc
    Everyone even remotely persuaded by or sympathetic to anything in that video deserves to be a Georgist. Or a Marxist. Or, most likely, a Marxo-georgist. I don't want them; you can keep them. They're not smart enough to be a libertarian. I don't want them anywhere near my movement.

    The video is a perfect condensation and concentration of everything most horribly wrong about Georgism; all the very worst arguments and sentiments which any of its adherents have expressed.

    And you wonder why people think you're like Marxists! Sickeningly patronizing maternalism: check. Class envy: raw and ugly. In that video it was all flaunted and even celebrated with no shame at all.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 01-31-2012 at 11:44 PM.

  35. #1740
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Everyone even remotely persuaded by or sympathetic to anything in that video deserves to be a Georgist. I don't want them; you can keep them. They're not smart enough to be a libertarian. I don't want them anywhere near my movement.
    Your movement...


    The video is a perfect condensation and concentration of everything most horribly wrong about Georgism; all the very worst arguments and sentiments which any of its adherents have expressed.
    Bravo! Great job deconstructing the arguments it makes! The truth is you cannot argue against any of its points therefore you simply dismiss it.

    People do not argue with the teachings of Henry George; they simply do not know it . He who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree. ~ Leo Tolstoy
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

Page 58 of 68 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Mike Lee: Public Land vs. Government Land
    By TaftFan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 04:54 PM
  2. Bernie Sanders- This Land is Your Land
    By Origanalist in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-29-2016, 09:16 PM
  3. BLM Anthem? "This Land Is Their Land"
    By Occam's Banana in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2014, 10:46 AM
  4. Land yacht? Try Land Ocean Liner!
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 05:32 PM
  5. A Man and his Land.
    By TomtheTinker in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 02:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •